New York State Considers ’ÄúInstant Runoff Voting’Äù for All Primaries and Local Elections
By Steve Abramson,  Executive Director

February 24, 2003

With the introduction of two politically neutral bills with bipartisan support, one for all primary contests and a second for local elections only, New York State may soon be able to switch to an election system that assures majority wins in multi-candidate elections. This voting system, called ’Äúinstant runoff voting,’Äù or IRV, enables voters to rank three or more candidates in their order of preference, so that a ’Äúsame-day’Äù runoff count can be made in the event no candidate wins the initial vote by majority.

Having an instant runoff saves the expense of a separate runoff election. That cost can be significant. The 2001 Democratic mayoral primary runoff in New York City cost $10 million to administer in a time of deficits. IRV also frees voters to choose their most preferred candidate first, eliminating the concern that by not initially voting for their second choice, the result could be the election of their least preferred candidate. If no candidate achieves a majority outright and a voter’Äôs first choice is eliminated, his or her second choice will still count, just as in a separate runoff election. IRV would, therefore, rid the notions of ’Äúwasted’Äù votes and ’Äúspoiler’Äù candidates.

Nationally in 2002, only 2% of Congressional races were decided short of majority, i.e., by plurality: 3 of 34 Senate seats and 5 of 434 House seats. Of the 36 races for Governor, however, 9 state contests were decided short of majority. New York State was one of them. Governor Pataki won 49.4% of the vote in the contest with Carl McCall and Tom Golisano. Had IRV been in place, Tom Golisano, having received the fewest votes, would have been eliminated and his voters’Äô second choices would have been added to the totals for Governor

Pataki and Carl McCall, assuring a majority winner. Governor Pataki would likely have won by a landslide in an instant runoff, as Tom Golisano siphoned off 14.3% of the total votes, predominantly from George Pataki.

In the 2002 primary elections in New York State, a runoff would have been needed to determine majority winners in 24 of 150 multi-candidate races, including 5 for Congress, 4 for State Senate, and 15 for State Assembly. In four Assembly Districts, Democratic primaries had four candidates in each race. Queens’Äô District 31 had six candidates, and Manhattan’Äôs District 69 had eight candidates. The winner of the primary in District 69 garnered only 34% of the votes, meaning that two of three voters preferred someone else. But it could have been even less representative...with eight candidates in the contest, it was mathematically possible to win with as little as 13% of the vote.

Most often, when runoff elections are held on a separate date, there is a significant drop-off in voter participation, with the result that a smaller percentage of eligible voters will decide the winner in a runoff election. IRV would usually assure that a greater percentage of the population is involved in the outcome. Another likely outcome is an increase in substantive debate and a reduction in ’Äúnegative campaigning,’Äù since candidates would not want to risk alienating the supporters of an eliminated contestant.And, elected officials could claim majority support for their policies.

IRV passed in March, 2002 in San Francisco and 53 towns and villages in Vermont. In May 2002, the Utah Republican Party used IRV to decide their U.S. Congressional candidates; in one district contest there were twelve candidates, and the leader in the first round with 24% was defeated by majority in the instant runoff by a candidate that had 21% in the first round. Several other states now have IRV initiatives pending. IRV has been used successfully in Ireland and Australia for decades.

Governor Pataki’Äôs Task Force on Election Modernization in its April, 2000 report, ’ÄúVoting in New York in the 21st Century,’Äù calls for the state to replace its lever-style voting equipment with ATM-style touch-screen equipment.With this new equipment, runoffs would truly be easy and instantaneous.

The IRV legislation was just introduced by Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele, Jr. of Sag Harbor, and already has seven bipartisan co-sponsors in the Assembly. If deemed successful in local elections, IRV could be introduced for statewide elections by separate legislation. In the future, IRV could also be used to decide by majority the winner-take-all state electoral college votes for President. For more information about IRV and how citizens can support the legislation in New York State, see the NYS-IRV organization website, www.nysirv.org .